Slashdot Mirror
The Future That Hasn't Arrived
jonerik writes "MSNBC has this article on an exhibit starting this week at Philadelphia's Lost Highways Archive and Research Library. Entitled Radebaugh: The Future We Were Promised, the exhibit focuses on the artwork of the elusive A.C. Radebaugh, a commercial illustrator whose works promised us a glittering, shiny tomorrow from the '30s to the '50s; a helicopter in every garage, massive streamlined cars, vacations on Mars - in short, pretty much everything we didn't get. The exhibit collects examples from Radebaugh's portfolio, auto designs for Chrysler, DoSoto, and Dodge, ads, and 'Closer Than We Think!,' a syndicated weekly comic strip drawn by Radebaugh. I want my jetpack, dammit!"
Omigod ... you mean that vacation on Mars was just a brain implant? Quick, get me a JohnnyCab!
due to your karma level, the powers that be have decided that you dont deserve a flying car. or a pony.
Ah yes, articles on the ultimate in vaporware. Do we have a vaporware icon?
In a lot of cases, what we *thought* was aerodynamic turned out to not be so once we had the computer capability to model airflow more accurately, under more realistic conditions.
What works in a windtunnel doesnt always work on the road where there may be a tailwind, side winds, etc.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
When we think of the future, we almost always think of technology. We think of starships and other things that are waaaaaay far off, so maybe the industrial revolution spurred this new way of thinking. Anyway, I'm justing typing randomly. I'll bet some historian will tell me I'm totally wrong.
William Gibson's "The Gernsback Continuum".
Next time you're driving around, note the number of cars driving like idiots, barely running, NOT running, and with dents.... ...now put them above your house.
You wanna keep them on the ground now don't you?
If you think education is expensive, you should try ignorance -- Derek Bok, president of Harvard
I am assuming the root of the matter is the disparity between what was predicted in art (science fiction) and what actually happened. I always felt there was too much of a preoccupation with space travel in the past. I guess this makes sense, given the Space Race took up a good amount of people's attention. However, there were two areas that were overlooked: The Internet and advancements in genetics. Both caught the forward-thinkers of the past by surprise.
There were many assumptions of huge talking robots, but not as many about the computers we have today. Our computers are not as powerful, but they're a commodity, available to everybody. Also, cloning was a pipe dream; something to happen in the year 2500 or whatever. And here we are, playing around with cloning cats.
It's not so bad, really, though I could use a good mail-order robobabe right about now.
No I'm not trolling.
Forget flying cars and vacationing on red planets, I'm still looking forward to when 640K isn't enough.
Oh, wait....
Posting as directed.
With the pessimism? Sure, we don't have flying cars or jetpacks or vacations to Mars.
Instead, we have computers literally millions of times faster than anyone imagined we'd have. Read some old sci-fi, and notice how the authors tend to make reference to people plotting the navigations by hand because it'd be too complicated for a computer?
We've got our personal communicaters, in the way of cell phones. Hell, with cell phones with cameras and video screens on them, we've already got our Dick Tracy wrist geenees, too.
We can genetically modify animals.
And, perhaps most importantly of all for the writers of the early sci-fi, we haven't destroyed ourselves as a species yet.
So why all the bitching about flying cars?
Cars travel so slowly most of the time, that aerodynamics simply isn't important. What is important, is to reduce turbulance noise - wind hiss. The importance of reduced drag on cars is mostly advertizing hype. As a case in point: Look at the bottom side of a sleek looking car. The manufacturers clearly are only interested in 'visible' aerodynamics and don't care about the other half that is not visible. So it is just about looks, not drag. Those big spoilers on the back of Hondas are not to reduce drag. They increase drag. If anything, their main purpose is to provide a handlebar to push them with.
.... is they focus on technology but forget one thing... Population... everyone conveniently forgets that the future holds TONS more people in it than now. What will that population want as far as technology goes? Futuristic cars? Pfft. Please, Houston/Dallas/LA, etc are parking lots as it is... imagine when there's twice as many people living there.
Know that empty lot next door? Wave bye bye.
That field of wildflowers? It's an apartment complex now.
I'd just like to see some fanciful futuristic art that depicts technology that looks like it was designed with a large population in mind.
It turns out that complex mechanical stuff is harder to design and mass-manufacture than formerly believed. So today's reality in terms of mechanically oriented consumer items in no way measures up to 1950s hopes.
At the same time, while 1950s soothsayers dreamt too big in regard to mechanical developments, they dreamt way too small in regard to communications developments. And, if given the choice, I'd much rather have email and web broadband access for $45/month than my own personal $20,000 helicopter. I suppose I'd rather fly to Mars than own a cell phone, but the technology behind a cell phone is in many ways more miraculous than anything that's been developed for affordable space flight.
The future we live in is in some respects a disappointment compared to 1950s hopes, but in other respects it's infinitely cooler than anyone could have dreamed of.
I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
Promise - What we Got
EngSoc from Orwell's '1984' - Department of Homeland Security
Doublespeak, also from '1984' - Politically Correct Speech
Debate over Human Cloning from 'Brave New World' - Current debate over Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research.
All-Powerful CIA/FBI from 'Snow Crash' - Patriot Act enchanced federal bureaus.
I could go one for quite some time...
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
Good lord, most people can't handle driving in two dimensions. Give them a third and there will be anarchy. ;p
"People should be allowed to keep midgets as pets."
- Gov. Jesse Ventura
OTOH, exhibits like this speak to the great optimism of human nature. Though it took Europe five hundred years from the time of Marco Polo to the time that they colonized a new continent, we were in the mid 20th century certain that we could conquer the solar system in fifty years. The same holds true for helicopters, jet packs, and everything else.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Right over there on the shelf, next to the copy of Duke Nukem Forever that it's included with.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Yesterland is a good place to see all the old, semi-forgotten attractions that seemed ahead of its time. Anyone remember those hovercraft bumper cars?.
Plus, Disney's got plenty of room to play around with right now. The old CircleVision attraction, the building right across from Star Tours, has been closed for a while and just sits there, probably only being used for storage. And whatever happened to those submarines in the lake?
Disney, take heed! Don't just devote an attraction to the newest technologies. The industry moves too fast these days to keep up. Instead, why not show mock-ups of these sorts of retro-tractions? I can think of a ton of cool interactive exhibits they could produce (think Jetsons), even with their cost-cutting mantra of recent. Now if only they'd bring back those RocketRods!
-Mr. Fusion
It's been confiscated by the Department of Homeland Security along with your jetpack and personal helicopter. These items are too easily modified to deliver weapons of mass destruction to be left in the careless hands of the average citizen. Move along now, there's nothing to see here.
Rule of thumb: if a 1-litre car is going greater than 30mph or so , aerodynamics really matters. There's a v-squared term in the maths.
:-) ). BTW, Hondas really can go very fast. Most of the "rice-boy" stuff in america is american car industry propaganda - you'll find, if you go to europe or asia, EVERYONE LAUGHS AT STUPID GAS-GUZZLING AMERICAN CARS, and prefers well-designed, efficient cars like hondas.
Spoilers are to increase turbulence at the rear of the car, thereby shifting flow separation further back, and actually reducing the pressure drag. If you don't know what pressure drag as opposed to frictional drag is, then this explanation will make very little sense to you...
Properly designed spoilers really do work (but only at the particular designed speed ranges). (note: large third-party spoilers on the back of hondas don't work
A rough undersurface of the car is also actually desirable (again, to INCREASE turbulence, though this time it increases drag) - the more turbulence, the less ground-effect lift will be generated, so you car doesn't take-off!
Foils (often mistaken for spoilers) on F1 cars and some rally cars, are upside wings, designed to increase downforce (at the expense of greater drag), thus increasing traction at the wheel.
Note: IAAFD - I Am A Fluid Dynamicist. Almost all the fluid stuff taught in secondary school is at best lies-to-children, downright wrong most of the time.
Progress is dangerous. If I make a product that will kill one user in a million, and everyone in America buys one, I'll face two hundred and eighty wrongful death suits, class action suits, branding as a mass murderer, and ghod help me if one of those failures happens during sweeps week.
Flying is fairly simple, but the consequences of error are rather specatular.
Cars were invented before lawsuits were so widespread; this is part of the reason Ford isn't bankrupt from all the innocent bystanders crossing the street in front of their potentially lethal products.
But the tort system in America is biased towards the right to be stupid and my obligation to accomodate your stupidity regardless of what you're doing with my product. So no, I'm sure as hell not going to build you a flying car just so you can sue me when you fuck up.
This is not my sandwich.
The jetsons promised a really cushy future where we all sit around in chairs that move us where we need to go (like a segway with a seat -- or a wheelchair?)
...and we have little to do most of the day because robots do it all for you.
...and a single salary supports a family of four!
It would seem that a rough underside is desirable *if* you have a downforce problem. This is not something your average commuter is worried about-- nobody lifts off, even at 80mph, on their way to work.
However, a smooth underside would seem to be beneficial for air resistance and thus to fuel economy. Honda's engineers and fluid dynamicists and whatnot agree, as their most efficient car (the Honda Insight) has a smooth underside to reduce drag.
In particular, note where the article states "Another important aerodynamic detail that greatly contributes to the Insight body's low coefficient of drag is the careful management of underbody airflow." And the numbers they quote for power required to push the car through the air are equally revealing-- "In comparison, the Honda Civic Hatchback, with roughly the same 1.9 square-meter frontal area as the Insight, has a Cd of 0.36, and needs around 32 percent more power to operate at the same speed as the Insight. "
So there you have it. Without the smooth underside, rear-wheel covers, and a tapered back-end-- you need 32% more power to push a car with roughly the same frontal area. I'm not sure I'd say "A rough undersurface of the car is actually desirable" without qualifying it by adding "for a race car, but not for a normal automobile."
Looking through the Syndicated section I see a total lack of concern for safety. Mailmen with rocket pack but no helmets or flight suits. Space hospitals with no failsafe systems. etc... Amazing.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
According to the Ford company, a pickup's aerodynamics is better with the tailgate on. With the gate on, you get a bubble of air behind the cab. With the gate off, this bubble gets deflated, resulting in more turbulance and more drag.
I think this essay by the great Bertrand Russell not only outlines the historical point you have made, but why the cult of efficiency and productivity which infects our society is so destructive and devisive.
Perhaps you read it, but for those out there who have not quite realized that the promise of technology, more free time, has not materialized, please read this essay.
I don't read or respond to AC posts
Well, it has, in absolute terms, but not in relative terms. The problem is that human psychology makes us view things using relative metrics instead of absolute ones. If you earn a 20% raise this year, but all your friends earn 100% raises, do you feel richer or poorer compared to last year?
If you want to have a 1950s comfortable standard of living regarding possessions, health care, entertainment, food, etc. you can do so by working far fewer hours than a 1950s human had to. But if you want a 2000s standard of living... ah, then you still have to work, or otherwise procure income. But at least work tends to be less menial and physically taxing than it did in the 1950s, on the average at least.
It's a question of whether you measure standard of living by absolute standards or relative ones. No matter what the technology level, it will be always true (in capitalist societies, anyway) that someone who works hard will, on the average, earn more than someone who works little at the same level of technology. So of course the idle will never win ... in relative terms. But if you view things in absolute terms, the idle American today can live far more comfortably than the average hard-working American in the 1950s. (The same is even true of the third world; a citizen of country X today has a more comfortable existence than a citizen of X in the 1950s, in almost all cases - calorie intake has more or less doubled, for instance, and life expectancy extended by a decade or more. Again, in relative terms the poor countries of 2000 will be behind the rich countries of 2000, but they can certainly be comparable with the rich countries of 1950 in many absolute, objective metrics.).
Nevertheless, I do agree with you on one point - there is more to life than the rat race. But you are free at any time to downshift and live a comfortable and leisuirely life, and viewed in absolute terms one has far more capability to do so now than in the past. It's only the relative viewpoint which seems to suggest that one cannot "afford" to be idle.
Terry